Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
The misconception/deception behind the EmDrive is in believing/claiming that EmDrive can be a viable engine for traveling in space. This is a pipe dream, folks, just like it is a pipe dream - or, rather, an idiocy - to hope to create Su-35 with "GasDrive" harvesting "acoustic thrust".
On the HyperLoop. The misconception/deception behind the the HyperLoop is not that transportation based on this idea is not feasible. The misconception/deception behind the HyperLoop is that it won't make an economically viable transportation method for moving around goods and passengers.
On Elon Musk colonizing Mars. The misconception/deception behind Elon Musk colonizing Mars is not that Mars will not be colonized in the future. The misconception/deception behind Elon Musk colonizing Mars is that America does not have the technology to colonize Mars. It's a fucking lie.
On Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon. The misconception/deception behind Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon is not that people will never reach the Moon. The misconception/deception behind Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon is that it was a fucking lie, which was conjured up to save America's ass from the rapidly advancing space technology developed in the Soviet Union. America cannot even replicate the rocket engines created in the Soviet Union back in the 60s and 70s. How could America then reach the Moon back in 1969 from the very first attempt, and repeat that "feat" six times in a row without a glitch... except that "Houston, we have a problem" Hollywood garbage?!
Stop pipedreaming, folks, and think!
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/103700629313459617039/posts?cbp=ykg533i24sin&sview=25&cid=5&soc-app=115&soc-platform=1
The Fibonacci spiral and surfaces deals with Kens ( and others) misunderstanding of centrifugal! A centrifugal motion is not divergent, but convergent. Thus the divergent motion at the edge of a magnet does have force vectors pointing out, but inertial resistance pointing centrally. Like a man stuck to a spinning wall the inertial resistance dissipates the divergent force just at the edge. The centrally converging forces balance the diverging forces at this region to provide the inertia in this regional dynamic.
If both dynamics were in the same direction rotationally , the steel balls used to demonstrate this difference would rotate atound the perimeter.
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/103700629313459617039/posts?cbp=ykg533i24sin&sview=25&cid=5&soc-app=115&soc-platform=1
A useful critic . However he ignores the central magnetic behaviour. The question s why ?
New electromagnetism does not deal with the gauss reading at the centre.
Centripetal magnetism that is converging magnetic behaviour and centrifugal magnetism( the term centrifugal mis applied ) is diverging magnetic behaviour.
Kegan j Brill offers a 3 d model of this behaviour.
Nme says charge migrates from the centre due to the peripheral current. But says nothing about the gauss reading in the centre
Quantity is not the same as quantifiable. Fields are quantifiable but they are not extensive magnitudes, like the - Aristotelian Prime mover they are "the movers that do not move ". Thus if we set up a scalar field the vectors inlaid into that field show movement in a field that does not necessarily move, if the scalars are say pressure reading. .
Dealing with the curvilineal disparity vis a vis the tv screen image question .
So the dark spaces are the convergent lines! So next to the light curvilineal lines are dark voids showing the convergent Magnetism or magnetic behaviour.
However that confirms the hypo trochoid but not the counter rotating of the TV screen . Megan's Gibonacci spiral does the job xxx
The principle of interference / superposition of vectors or rotations / curvilineal vectors is what is missing. The Fibonacci spiral has one limb converging next o one limb diverging. . The interference of the converging limb with the diverging limb occurs most in the centre and then spreads out , while the diverging limb drops out of interference towards the shapes edge. This then allows constructive interference to occur one for the diverging the other for the converging. So the hypo trochoid is a diffraction pattern created by the iron nano particles forming a grating that encourages co structure and destructive interference .
The fainter lines may therefore Not be from the other face entirely. .
Move the axis of that gyroscope off the magnet's axis a bit (one doesn't have to tilt it at all, as numerous commenters to the video had suggested), and the magnetic breaking effect will ensue immediately - the more you remove the two axes from each other (without reaching the magnetic rim, though!), the more breaking power you'll get. In other words, you don't have to go from one type of magnetism, at the center of the magnet, to the other type of magnetism, at the rim of the magnet, in order to get the breaking effect.
The existence of two different types of magnetism (one at the center, and the other at the rim), as Ken is suggesting, is a bull crap - if I may borrow Ken's colorful language for a second.
The braking , as in a brake for a tyre , is not the issue in my mind. Why does the gyroscope spin in the centre without braking ? NEM suggests charge build up , but then no explanation of moving charge in a magnetic field, because he concentrates on the current interaction , so no magnetic field mentioned at all.
Does one presume the moving charge on the gyroscope edge produces an aligned magnetic field ?
Braking is the observed behaviour what is the cause in your model? And why does it not operate at the centre?
In NMR magnetic precession is explained by a mathematical cross product , but I would have to hunt for an explanation of the central in line spinning of the gyroscope. In classical terms.
Aragis disc intrigued Maxwell, the Hall effect is recognised but not fully investigated and the homo polar motor I proposed a solution to is yet without comment .
For me , I feel I am close to a clearer appreciation of the Chladini effect on a universal trochoidal dynamic that encompasses all forces in an aether which as Lodge suggests may or may not be incompressible .
@Jehovajah
Here is the situation, as I understand it. If you, or Distinti, or Ken, or anyone else for that matter claims that Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic field theory contradicts “the central magnetic behavior”, as you put it (to wit, there is no – or, rather, very little – braking when the gyroscope is held above the center of the magnet) then you have to show that the original system of eight equations of Maxwell (and I underline: the eight original Maxwell's equations – not the four equations of Heaviside! See for details: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field) has only one solution for the setup described above, and that one solution should say: a noticeable braking effect must be observed.
Can you do that? No, you cannot. Can Distinti do that? No, he cannot. Can Ken do that? No, he cannot. Can anyone in the world do that? No, sir. No one, period!
The problem with Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic field theory is not that it is wrong. The problem with Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic field theory is that it is ... useless: one can “explain” everything and anything with it – that flexible it is!
Did Tesla make use of Maxwell's theory while doing his groundbreaking engineering discoveries? No, sir, he did not. Did Edward Leedskalnin make use of any theory, any differential equations, or any equations, period? Does any electrical engineer in the world use Maxwell’s equations to do his daily work? No, he does not. What’s more, the modern electric engineer does not even know that the so-called Maxwell’s equations are not Maxwell’s equations to begin with, much less that these “Maxwell’s equations” – as I have endeavored to show here – are inconsistent even from mathematical point of view.
Agreed !
Sir William Gilbert gathered together all the phenomena he could find , illicit and canvas for others as well as his own observations. From this, and his Alchemical background he attempted (a) to loosen the academic grip of Aristotelian Nonsense ! (b) to establish a corpuscular THEORY of magnetism.
I recently learned that DesCartes attempted a theory based on Archimedian screw type corpuscles or vortices of a corpuscular distinction. There were other theoretical models that refined Gilbert's Theoretical structure, into which, Kelvin's and Maxwells contributions fall.
It is important to note that Kelvin attempted to Squelch both Hamilton and Maxwell in favour of his own theoretical contributions with Helmholtz! This is how it is in Academia! Primacy gets the available bucks when you can manipulate the social and political aspects of the Acadmic community. .
However, the game is to build a robust team of students who will fight the good fights for ones pet theory. This, as you know becomes a disgusting display( to me) of arrogance and ad Hominem mudslinging which does not elevate the spirit to the so called Truth, but rather makes The Truth the biggest lie of all!
So what wasTesla experiencing in his intuitive visions? I don't know! But his patents, designs and comments reveal the fundamental attunement to rotation .
This is where I start my synthetic theories or hypotheses or plain guesses After I have engaged in meditative analysis.
Like any other analyst, I start somewhere and then cut down below the surface until I become exhausted or genuinely convinced I can go no further or deeper without repeating the same result . Thus I use exhaustion or fractal similarity as my seemeioon , that is Greek for indicator of when to start synthesising all the parts together again
To make a sensible explanation of how it all fits together.
As an analyst I am personally open to revisiting my basic analytical elements again and again in the light of new insights or new information . I have long since relinquished the desire for fame, fortune and flattery, delighting instead in fractal simplicity ( dare I say siimplex? Lol!) I ignore protestation of the right way and construct my own synthetic models, warts and all, to come to my own conclusions!
And then I tear that down and start again .
The fun is in the details, even if they result in the same conclusions.
So right now I note Ken shifting to an explanation that involves super positioning of behaviours that result in constructive and destructive interference. . I recognise that signature as rotational fluid dynamics . That leads me to analyse the ferro luminous viewing lenses he uses and to characterise them as diffraction gratings .
There are many known issues with lenses and lense rings. Huygen used them to determine whether a corpuscular theory of light was indeed satisfactory compared to the wave in the plenum theory of light proposed by Grimaldi, Who " discovered" diffraction, or the shaving off of the "light beam".
When Fresnel proposed the Transverse Wave theory, he predicted( or rather Arago did) a light spot in the middle of a shadow! Because Arago found this spot he becme convinced gainst his own prejudices that Fresnel was right! But Young wanted. Longitudinal component to be part of the light " wave" and argued for such to little avail .
These are largely complex mathmatical presentations based on differential equations, and Hamilton poved the same or identical result in generality when a young student/ lecturer at University.
What I am implying is that this central,point effect is seen in all magnetic/ rotatioal/ wave depicted behaviour and often overlooked, despite being known! It certainly can be related to the MASING phenomena that Townsend empirically demonstrated.
For me the dynamic topology shines through as a trochoidal dynamic. Unfortunately, despite being surrounded by such topologies, it is only through the mathmatical theories of curvature that I even grasp the synthesis of these locii and surfaces containing these locii.
I should say geometry rather than mathematics , because it is their eyes that have seen and characterised these curvilineal or Shunyasutra foms, before Mercator,Newton and Wallis worked out the logarithmic curve and Euler set out the exponential power series form as the anti logarithmic form.
Several artists were convinced it was a fundmental curvature in nature , especially the cardioid .
While many make a big thing about ø phi the incommensurable limit to the Fibonacci series, the golden ratio, it is in fact only one of the infinite possibilities of trochoidal dynamical ratios possible that give nice patterns when put into an app that traces trochoids.
So that we get this particular trochoidal patterning in the light show is significant confirmation of an underlying rotational dynamic which can be picked to by circular topological structures., such as this ferro luminous lense detector ken uses, if it is inside a if fraction grating formed by the magnetic behaviour near the axial ends of a bar magnet.
So that being said the difference in the effect of the magnet on a spinning gyroscope is a phenomena , like the Catt Questions that prompt further analysis and explanatory synthesis .
Faraday records the polarising effect of a magnet on a crystal material
Thus in order to " explain" the image distortion seen on a tv screen we can utilise 1 the diffraction grating structure of the screen: 2 the refractive index properties of all the materials in that screen layer: 3 the polarisation effect of the magnet on those materials, and therefore the variation in the refractive indes:4 the rotationl effect of the magnet on the cathode ray emissions( or magnetic filamentary rays from the cathode and anodes) .
Similarly we can factor these elements into the ferro luminescent device to explain its output.
Regardless, the explanations depend on a stable magnetic behaviour for a magnet and thus may be taken as analogue visualisation of the magnetic behaviour. Where it does help is in explaining the central point as either a phenomenon of a single clockwise pattern or a dual clockwise pattern which is nevertheless opposing in vectorial direction relative to a given "magnet" face.
There may also be other possibilities involving counter rotating vectors on the same face ie from the same topological point two counter rotating curvilineal vectors of differing " strength"/magnitude.
However , the issue of the field structure at the poles is consistent with converging magnetic behaviour rotating not just in one rotational direction , and of course diverging magnetic behaviour interacts with that " producing" x rays and ultra violet emissions.
Perhaps we need to look more closely at the interference patterns we see in the ferro luminous viewer and check for higher frequency emissions!!
Questions , speculations and the failure of modern science
But importantly the dielectric concept is explained as a very confusing concept !
Sounds like magnetic behaviour is the clearest observable!
This is basic rotational theory applying semi Newtonian models.
In fact you need to start with the behaviour of a pendulum .
You must avoid confusion between centrifugal force and inertial reaction force .
You must resist the implication that tangential force produces tangential motion when an object is launched from a circular force whether centripetal or centrifugal. ( a pressure inwards ).
It is wiser to think in terms of pressure surfaces and to understand contraction / attraction pressures and expansion / repulsion pressures.
Finally the time or duration of cause and effect coupling is a measure of inertia reactions.
The quantity of motion has a transfer duration which is a measure of inertia. .
最后，因果耦合的时间或持续时间是惯性反应的量度。
运动量具有作为惯性度量的转移持续时间
... not necessarily because it is entirely meaningless and useless, but rather because I do not understand the language you have chosen to express yourself in.
Am I alone here?
Thank you. This is my bad .
Work with me on this because I wrote as I dimly perceived, aware that I would need to flesh this out if I got time.
Today I did not have time and the thought may well slip away as these things do .
So let me sketch the hinterland of my perception and if you will, you focus on what needs clarity.
Firstly space itself is perceptible as something. Or rather, something is perceptible behind all the perceptibles as existing to which I attach the label " Space" .
By analogy with the Ocean I model it as a trochoidally dynamic medium consisting largely of one medium. That this medium is dynamic is perceptible by its effect on an immersed, sentient observer, who , being puny makes the observation that unless it can express some pattern of experience of that perception of motion it can not designate,define and distinguish aspects of its experiential continuum?
There are many patterns that it could express, but it chooses to express the spherical motion pattern as a fundamental basic pattern which is scalable and superpsitional( sum able as discrete motions giving a resultant motion)
By this pattern the immersed observer senses almost self similarity in behaviours at all scales, and also the extreme complexity of certain seemingly simple perceptions of motion.
It becomes clear that certain large scale patterns arise from superpsitional combinatorial arrangements of smaller patterns. The experience of observing these developmental patterns result in a large scale pattern I will label duration.
It becomes apparent that different developmental behaviours have different durations.
These differing durations I will label as inertia.
Thus the development of a large scale motion from these small scale motions exhibit inertia, that is a variation in duration from the beginning of the developmental patterns to the observed resultant large scale motion, dependent on the initial and initiating patterns to the large scale motion.
This robust connection between the initial and initiating patterns to the large scale motion I will label cause and effect.
Now the immersed observer has a scaffolding of semi precise terms to further describe certain patterns in his experiential continuum as cause and effect patterns in which inertial experiences are inherently involved, and embedded.
What remains is to establish an agreed quantification model to provide measurable quantities consistently that provide the immersed observer with a quantifiable model that consistently distinguishes the set out distinctive labels.
At the level of these quantitative measures an expert may manipulate the observables into found invariant foms , that then enable consistent resultants to be calculated or read off.
How useful and powerful these found invariants are depends not on the experts formulations, but on the cause nd effect situations empirically tested . The technological establishment of these cause effect patterns is a separate skill which feeds into the expertise of The wise and experienced artisan able to derive formulations of a quantitative nature to guide designs of them( cause effect patterns of substnce) .
I am sorry, but I have completely failed to make any sense of these pronouncements, so I will label a method of constructing such pronouncements as random.
Since I am unable to make sense of these utterances, and still wish to give you the benefit of the doubt, the only way I can be convinced that your mental constructs make any sense is to invent something (by way of making use of these constructs!) that performs some useful function, or to come up with a physical demonstration of some surprising effect, or, at least, to show some perplexing mathematics related to these constructs. Can you do that?
It is, probably, not a good idea to expect that someone will or can make use of these extremely vague and confused utterances unless you - at the very least - attempt to do it yourself.